A post to the Steam Users' Forums by Team 6's Ronnie Nelis calls out Eurogamer for its scathing review of Flatout 3: Chaos & Destruction, which gave the racing sequel a miniscule 1/10 ranking. Nelis calls the reviewer a "liar," saying the review was copied (thanks Joao). A subsequent post expands:

If you don't believe the text, check the screens: They don't show any deformation for example, someting that is present for quite some weeks now. There's only one reason how this is all possible: He is playing a non-official, old version of the game. It's not what people see when they purchase the game, thus not representive.

Also worth noticing: our publisher has only sent out review copies to the press as from today.. (so how could he have 'received' it earlier?)

I don't mind people complaining, giving feedback, or just disliking the game in general. I have plenty of positive and happy fanmail to cheer me up again after reading this article, but what bothers me is that he is not telling the truth. Shouldn't a reporter be fair and tell the truth?

To make this comparision fair: This one is not positive neither, but the text is open-minded, fair and therefore better. The gamespot reporter also used an old version and not the official publisher-review copy which has been sent out only today BUT he did actually played and obviously enjoyed the game. Worth noticing: The two things he marks as "bad" are completely fixed nowadays. (too bad we can't get a re-review hehe)

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 6, 2012, 16:37:I don't get it. Steam says that it was released on the 13th December, 2011 and the review was published on the 5th January, 2012. It doesn't matter when the publisher sends out review copies if the website can simply go and purchase the game for themselves. The reality is that the publisher rushed out the game for the Christmas sales and now they're patched it and have been sending it out to reviewers. Well FUCK THEM! If they sold a shitty game - and there is absolutely no doubt from all the reviews, many of which are equally low scoring - then they deserve a low score.

As for the idea that 1/10 should only be reserved for games that are unplayable out of the box... nonsense. If the game is so bad that it has no redeeming features and isn't fun then 1/10 is perfectly appropriate. I think that Eurogamer is actually a pretty good review site and their reviews are a lot more credible than sites like Gamespot, Gamespy and IGN.

Moral of the story? Don't release shit games.

Yeah, when I read the blurb I thought "so the reviewer grabbed a pirated copy?" But he didn't, he grabbed a retail copy. And it sucked because the game was rushed out.

Is it fair that the review will stand up forever on a version that only existed for a week? Not particularly. But it's the price you pay for releasing a week early. If you don't want a crappier version reviewed don't release the crappier version. It's that simple.